(Vancouver, B.C. July 5, 2012) In the
last week a series of high profile News stories have been released which
have raised a number of questions regarding the use of Pixels in Camouflage
patterns.

The current Phase IV U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement
Effort was mandated by the U.S. Congress when research on their current UCP
(Universal Camouflage Pattern) showed that it was ineffective in almost all
environments tested. It turns out that field trials were never carried out
on UCP before it was issued.

The idea that one camouflage could work in
all environments has also been shown in U.S. Army testing to be false. UCP
was meant to be that camouflage but Multicam which won the U.S. Army's Phase
III program to replace UCP in Afghanistan was also shown to be less
effective over all terrains within the 2010 U.S. Army Natick testing for
Phase III; Multicam did
very well in Rocky Desert and Mountainous Terrain which are the primary
environments found in Afghanistan, however, Multicam did not place in the
top ten patterns for either Cropland/Woodland and faired even worse for
Sandy Desert Terrain. There were a total of 17 patterns tested.

"Digital Pixel patterns are Ineffective!"
Wrong

A number of news organizations have taken the
failure of UCP to mean that all Pixelated patterns are not effective and a
big waist of money. This
poor reporting has caused Singapore (and undoubtedly other militaries) to
question their recent change to Pixel patterns.

The US4CES™
family of camouflage submission I made with ADS Inc. is the only digital pixelated
pattern to be down selected for Phase IV field trials expected to begin in
the next few days and last for about 3-4 months.

Phase III was to find a solution for
Afghanistan and not a worldwide solution, Phase III was also mandated by the
U.S. Congress.

Multicam has 7 colors and given that the
pixelated patterns all have only 4 or 3 colors one would expect that
Multicam would have a large advantage in blending across these varied
backgrounds. Each extra color adds cost to printing so do the three or four
extra colors in Multicam provide the advantage to justify the higher
production cost?

"Army to Recommend MultiCam for Entire
Force" FALSE

Military.com recently reported "After years of testing, Army uniform officials
are planning to recommend that MultiCam should replace today's pixilated
design as the official camouflage pattern the service issues to all
soldiers, Military.com has learned."...

"One option would be to make MultiCam the
Army's official camouflage pattern, sources tell Military.com.

The second option would be to make
MultiCam the service's pattern for garrison and general deployment use, but
also to have a family of approved camouflage patterns that could be issued
for specific areas of the world.

Earlier this week, UCP came under fire
again in a story by The Daily, an online news site, which quoted several
Army scientists from Natick Soldier Systems Center, Mass., alleging that the
Army selected UCP long before testing was complete."

Given that Phase IV Field Trials are just
beginning within the next few weeks, if true these, two options follow the
same mistake that the Army made with UCP "the
Army selected UCP long before testing was complete.".

Even without Phase IV testing, we can see
from Previous U.S. Army Natick testing that Multicam does not provide an
adequate solution for either Cropland/Woodland or Sandy Desert Terrains.

In 2010 the Army began Phase IV Camouflage
testing using a series of experiments to down select from about 20 industry
submissions, with each submission consisting of a family of camouflage
sharing a similar geometry but recolored to work in three separate
environments (Tropical/Woodland, Desert/Arid and Transitional) to allow the
Army to operate in different terrains around the world. This initial testing
concluded in January to four commercial finalists who have all been asked
for Field Trial Uniforms and gear to compete against three baseline patterns
AOR-1 for Desert/Arid, Multicam for Transitional and AOR-2 for
Tropical/Woodland.

I have since been informed that these comments
from "Uniform Officials" are either in error or were taken out of context, I
was told that the Army will continue with Field Trials and report the
findings to Army leaders before any decision is made based on the winner
which will be based on the field tests and one final Photo Simulation
Perception Study based on photos of the actual uniforms .

Our internal objective tests based off of
previous U.S. Military testing techniques showed that our US4CES
Transitional pattern exceed the U.S. Navy’s AOR-2 pattern by 19.86% and OEF/OCP
(MultiCam®) by 26.71% within transitional environments. See
www.adsinc.com/us4ces

The reason for field trials are to see if the
real world corresponds to the simulation results, many different factors can
only be determined with field trials.

Why not just go with MARPAT?

The baseline patterns AOR-1 and AOR-2 are the
same pattern as MARPAT with slightly different colors which both tested
better than MARPAT Woodland and MARPAT Desert in those respective
environments. The winner of Phase IV is expected to exceed the baseline
patterns to provide the most effective family of camouflage to the U.S.
Army.

Our US4CES pattern is designed to disrupt at
tactical combat distances which MARPAT, CADPAT, AOR-1, AOR-2 fall victim to
a problem called isoluminance which the four colors blend into one color due
to the tight proximity of the pattern. Both the Micropattern - pixels and
Macropattern are larger in US4CES and the pattern has been developed to
disrupt both the human shape and mask movement.

US4CES™
Woodland Pattern (Left), CADPAT (Right)

CADPAT (Canadian Pattern) was issued in
1996 the USMC asked and recieved permission to use the same pattern
for MARPAT which was issued in 2001. The U.S. Army used a three color
version for UCP in 2004, The Navy recolored MARPAT for AOR-1, AOR-2
and AOR-Universal in 2011. As you can see US4CES is not a the same
pattern or configuration to CADPAT/MARPAT it is designed to be better.

Universal Camouflage Pattern was not a pattern
design flaw but a coloration issue, UCP is a three color version of MARPAT,
AOR-1, AOR-2 which have shown to be very effective. Digital works because it
breaks up straight lines while also creating background noise and allows for
colors to mix leading to a more natural effect at proper viewing distances.

What a waste of money!

We can't dwell on things that we can't change
but the Army can look ahead. The Army thought of licensing this differently than they
have in the past, the winning submission would be awarded a fixed one time
payment to license the family to the Army, as the Army requested each
finalist to specify an amount, they are different for each company and will
only be awarded to the winning company.

Given the F-35 fighter jet will cost over $112
Million dollars per aircraft to produce and the entire F-35 program is
estimated to cost $323 Billion Dollars once all the required aircraft are
produced, the U.S. Army cannot be faulted on this program regarding cost to
protect their soldiers on the ground.